The remarkable ability of large language models (LLMs) to comprehend, interpret, and generate complex language has rapidly integrated LLM-generated text into various aspects of daily life, where users increasingly accept it. However, the growing reliance on LLMs underscores the urgent need for effective detection mechanisms to identify LLM-generated text. Such mechanisms are critical to mitigating misuse and safeguarding domains like artistic expression and social networks from potential negative consequences. LLM-generated text detection, conceptualized as a binary classification task, seeks to determine whether an LLM produced a given text. Recent advances in this field stem from innovations in watermarking techniques, statistics-based detectors, and neural-based detectors. Human-assisted methods also play a crucial role. In this survey, we consolidate recent research breakthroughs in this field, emphasizing the urgent need to strengthen detector research. Additionally, we review existing datasets, highlighting their limitations and developmental requirements. Furthermore, we examine various LLM-generated text detection paradigms, shedding light on challenges like out-of-distribution problems, potential attacks, real-world data issues, and ineffective evaluation frameworks. Finally, we outline intriguing directions for future research in LLM-generated text detection to advance responsible artificial intelligence. This survey aims to provide a clear and comprehensive introduction for newcomers while offering seasoned researchers valuable updates in the field.1

The efficacy of detectors for texts generated by large language models (LLMs) substantially depends on the availability of large-scale training data. However, white-box zero-shot detectors, which require no such data, are limited by the accessibility of the source model of the LLM-generated text. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective black-box zero-shot detection approach based on the observation that, from the perspective of LLMs, human-written texts typically contain more grammatical errors than LLM-generated texts. This approach involves calculating the Grammar Error Correction Score (GECScore) for the given text to differentiate between human-written and LLM-generated text. Experimental results show that our method outperforms current state-of-the-art (SOTA) zero-shot and supervised methods, achieving an average AUROC of 98.62% across XSum and Writing Prompts dataset. Additionally, our approach demonstrates strong reliability in the wild, exhibiting robust generalization and resistance to paraphrasing attacks. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/NLP2CT/GECScore.

With the increasing integration of large language models (LLMs) into real-world applications such as finance, e-commerce, and recommendation systems, their susceptibility to misinformation and adversarial manipulation poses significant risks. Existing fraud detection benchmarks primarily focus on single-turn classification tasks, failing to capture the dynamic nature of real-world fraud attempts. To address this gap, we introduce Fraud-R1, a challenging bilingual benchmark designed to assess LLMs’ ability to resist fraud and phishing attacks across five key fraud categories: Fraudulent Services, Impersonation, Phishing Scams, Fake Job Postings, and Online Relationships, covering subclasses. Our dataset comprises manually curated fraud cases from social media, news, phishing scam records, and prior fraud datasets.

Investigating bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial for developing trustworthy AI. While prompt-based through prompt engineering is common, its effectiveness relies on the assumption that models inherently understand biases. Our study systematically analyzed this assumption using the BBQ and StereoSet benchmarks on both open-source models as well as commercial GPT model. Experimental results indicate that prompt-based is often superficial; for instance, the Llama2-7B-Chat model misclassified over 90% of unbiased content as biased, despite achieving high accuracy in identifying bias issues on the BBQ dataset. Additionally, specific evaluation and question settings in bias benchmarks often lead LLMs to choose “evasive answers”, disregarding the core of the question and the relevance of the response to the context. Moreover, the apparent success of previous methods may stem from flawed evaluation metrics. Our research highlights a potential “false prosperity” in prompt-base efforts and emphasizes the need to rethink bias evaluation metrics to ensure truly trustworthy AI. We will release our data and code upon acceptance.

The large language model (LLM) has garnered significant attention due to its in-context learning mechanisms and emergent capabilities. The research community has conducted several pilot studies to apply LLMs to machine translation tasks and evaluate their performance from diverse perspectives. However, previous research has primarily focused on the LLM itself and has not explored human intervention in the inference process of LLM. The characteristics of LLM, such as in-context learning and prompt engineering, closely mirror human cognitive abilities in language tasks, offering an intuitive solution for human-in-the-loop generation. In this study, we propose a human-in-the-loop pipeline that guides LLMs to produce customized outputs with revision instructions. The pipeline initiates by prompting the LLM to produce a draft translation, followed by the utilization of automatic retrieval or human feedback as supervision signals to enhance the LLM’s translation through in-context learning. The human-machine interactions generated in this pipeline are also stored in an external database to expand the in-context retrieval database, enabling us to leverage human supervision in an offline setting. We evaluate the proposed pipeline using the GPT-3.5-turbo API on five domain-specific benchmarks for German-English translation. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the pipeline in tailoring in-domain translations and improving translation performance compared to direct translation instructions. Additionally, we discuss the experimental results from the following perspectives: 1) the effectiveness of different in-context retrieval methods; 2) the construction of a retrieval database under low-resource scenarios; 3) the observed differences across selected domains; 4) the quantitative analysis of sentence-level and word-level statistics; and 5) the qualitative analysis of representative translation cases.